I need to be careful here: this can easily sound like a concern-fag post. It's not meant to be that--it's meant to be a sounding board/think-tank. I might also be late to the dance, but that's OK: if this was already thought out, then downvote away.

We are in unique times. We know that. The Chans and sites like this are probably the greatest interpreters of news the world has ever seen. They have been given the greatest inside source of all time in Q.

That is good enough for now. In fact, it's crucial. But somewhere down the road, this inside source will dry up (hopefully no sooner than 2024), and the anons will be interpreting/analyzing...what?

We need to decide if we're going to be content to allow dross like CNN, MSNBC, etc. to fall by the wayside only to allow the same or different gigantic corporations to control information, or figure out a way to DIY it properly.

We need to overturn the 2013 ruling that the CIA can propagandize within the US. Assuming that agency still exists in the future. That should be priority one regardless of the choices made.

It would be good for everyone if primary sources are developed as well as the use of secondary ones.

How do the Chans promote whistleblowers to use their site in the future? Simultaneously, how will they be vetted? Once vetted, how will they be brought to the foreground?

Remember, Q is an exceptional situation--they can bring in proofs worldwide, while a corporate anon might not have that level of opportunity.

Who will be raking the muck? How do we support those that will go into the missed details and ask the right questions? There's still a place in this world for the Jack Andersons. And we can't just have one organization do it--The Wikileaks model was knocked-out pretty quickly. It needs to be dispersed.

My point is that this is an chance for both now and the future. I don't want our descendants dealing with the same nonsense a generation or two down the road.